A small thing about this . . . .I like the forums, here, honest. So I will try to link news from other sources, when dropped (and when pointed out to me) so the news is here, as well. But CSM cannot control what CCP decides to reveal and in what venue. We can ask for your feedback and thoughts afterwards and give feedback to CCP ahead of time on changes upcoming. That is part of what you elected us to do. The biggest threadnaught for me, this week has been the proving grounds one Proving of Kybernauts for Glorification in the Flow Unfolds with Brisc and I listening to folks on both sides of the fence as we all discuss instanced pvp and fair fights.
In the background the CSM15 has stepped up and the CSM14 is stepping back. Now comes the chats/meetings amongst ourselves and getting to know who is going to be someone you can work with and who is going to be fairly quiet. If you have questions, comments? Hit me up down below or by eve mail.
Yes, because the NDA lasts a fair while AFTER you are out of office. I asked a few questions of the outgoing and answers were readily available. For me it was mainly to see what changes have been wrought since I last was on the council. A lot can change over the years and some stuff that I thought was handy has been laid to the side.
I do not have to reinvent the wheel, just remember the general design.
But one the handoff is over? Yeah they are out of the loop, off of the official access to new info etc.
EVE Players: “We need to promote open-world PVP and make changes that lower the barrier to entry for carebears to engage in higher level content without being outright decimated and having them crawl back into hisec PVE from such a bad experience”
“If you find yourself in a fair fight, you’ve done something wrong.”
Words of wisdom, regarding playing EVE, passed from mentors to new players, since before I started playing EVE.
This is bandied about constantly in reference to EVE. It’s an adage.
And now, that sentiment, that attitude that defined “generations” of EVE players appears to be in danger of being a casualty of the search for “improvement”, for lack of a better word.
I think if CCP had introduced this feature in a dev blog, where it was made plain this was simply an iteration on the special events they host regularly it would not have garnered so much controversy, and such heated passion in that controversy, too. But, no. CCP just had to mention the possibility of permanence.
So, the question I asked myself is this: at the end of the day, does fairness, the expectation of fairness, or better yet, is the appearance of fairness necessary to the survival of EVE?
I can’t answer that question. I don’t have financials. I don’t have access to developers. There is simply too much information I don’t know.
What I do know, though, is this, if “fairness”, (as defined in the context of this conversation, i.e. “matchmaking”), as a concept spreads throughout CCP’s design decisions for the game and is perceived to be a prerequisite for EVE to survive, or even flourish, it will simply no longer be “EVE”, in my opinion.
From it’s beginning EVE was built upon the basis of asymetricality. If a player was willing to put in the effort, he or she could prevail against enormous odds in their pursuit of personal goals of gameplay. They could triumph.
This feature of EVE could propel a player into heights of satisfaction with the game that would sustain them through enormous slogs of failure. This feature, asymetricality, kept players playing.
It was the foundation of “our” stories.
And now, CCP threatens to undermine this sustaining pillar of EVE with “fairness” in fights.
In my opinion, this is EVE’s very own Pandora’s Box.
It is the threat of “fairness” that unnerves me. It is the threat of permanence of the concept of “fairness in fights” that unnerves me. It is the threat this concept of “fairness” will spread throughout CCP’s design decisions, that troubles me to the point where I write all this.
One constant of EVE, since I started, is change. Change is a fact of life, and of EVE.